Learning to embrace differences

In the beginning of my career, I would sometimes get annoyed with people who were different from me.

Joining a global communication team as a journalist, I was especially valued for my writing skills, but for some reason, I half expected my colleagues to excel in that same skill. So when I was presented with half-baked prose or asked to improve on the writing of others, a little voice in my head would say: “They are poor writers. You are better than them.”

Eventually, I learned to be more humble (I hope). Instead of being annoyed with others’ shortcomings, I learned to value and admire their strengths.

Everyone is good at something. I know now that I am pretty good at:

• Writing and editing, knowing my audience, and cherishing the finer details of good prose and clear messaging
• Finding structure, connecting the dots, seeing the red thread, and remembering contexts of similar topics and historic developments
• A data-driven mind-set, knowing the opportunities and limitations of measuring your efforts, and presenting insights in compelling ways

But perhaps what I’m good at is not the most important thing. Of course people shouldn’t incorrectly correct my grammar when it’s neither their job nor their key competence. But nobody is good at everything.

Instead of asking “why are they not like me?” I can be inspired when my teammates excel in things that are not my own key competences, such as:

• Persistence and savviness when dealing with senior stakeholders
• The ability to work hard for long periods without becoming bored or distracted
• Listening to all concerns, even when you think your own solution is the best
• The project management DNA of always hovering over everything, pushing for traction in all corners, and leaving no stones unturned

In a great team, we know to play each other good. We know our own strengths and weaknesses, and we forge good relations with each other to cover the gaps, and use our abilities and unique value-adds collectively for the greater good.

And for the sake of my own career, my ambition should not be to judge or compare skill-sets. I should rather consider how I can use my own unique perspectives to help others and spread influence more widely than my formal sphere of responsibility – with a humble appreciation of everything they bring to the table.

Bad press and the untouchable media

Are the media always right? Of course they are, at least if you ask themselves. And with a monopoly on information, who else would you ask?

In recent weeks, the Danish online supermarket Nemlig.com has been criticized in the media for working conditions in their warehouses and for drivers. (Disclaimer: I’m a loyal customer, and will most likely remain so.)

I’m sure they will fix the matters eventually, including the bad press. But what is interesting is the near unanimous opinion that they are wrong to take on the media.

In the company’s own explanation, this is what they wrote:

“We are being exposed to a crazy smear campaign by [union] 3F, and they have succeeded in getting [newspaper] Politiken to be the spokesperson.”

Media relations experts have been quick to point fingers. The common sentiment is: Don’t criticize the media, they are just doing their job, they are uncovering the truth, etc.

But that’s easy to say for someone inside the media eco-system – blowing your own trumpet. The point is, media people love to talk about themselves. They also reiterate an understanding about their own infallibility. But by doing that, they are undermining their credibility.

The media are not always right

Don’t get me wrong – a free press is vital to a free society, and something worth fighting for. But that doesn’t’ mean that they are always right or never make mistakes.

Or even more so: despite their quality measures, the media are not neutral. You see this extreme polarization in the U.S., but it is there elsewhere, wherever you have a truly free press.

My trust in the Danish media outlets TV2 and Politiken is quite small, for instance. Their world-view is different from mine and I find their methods at times reprehensible. They are professional and important to society, yes, but what and how they report it is an active choice.

Often – as is the case here – they decide to take sides and portray certain actors as ‘bad guys’. And for these two outlets, the bad guys are often private companies, and rarely, say, unions or left-wing politicians.

They are welcome to this stance, but then don’t decry the reaction if someone doesn’t agree.

Trust is declining, in the media as in politicians. To regain some at that trust, they need to listen to criticism and engage in dialogue, not brush it away and say, “we cannot be touched.”

Voting in the land of conformity

The art of political debate still has good conditions in Denmark.

In two days, Denmark will go to the polls and, most likely, elect a new government. With the myriad of small parties, the exact constellation is very much unknown, but it seems quite clear that the current centre-right coalition will be replaced by a centre-left coalition. Whether this means any real change is a different matter, for Denmark is a country of conformity, grand coalitions, and economic and political stability.

Even though we have far-right extremists and other loonies running for parliament, and some might even enter, the main image of the past month’s debate is one of consensus, even joviality. This is heartening, as other countries descend into political anarchy.

Not to say that the parties cannot disagree, even vehemently so. The art of political debate has strong roots here, giving almost a festival mood as hopeful candidates try to make their sound bites stand out in the frenzy.

Framing and owning the story

The art of political debate has many facets. One of them is loaded questions. Framing the questions gives you the advantage, which is why you will almost never hear candidates say yes or no.

An example of a loaded question is, “How much more will you spend on daycare?” This plays to the highest bidder, and nearly everyone will try their best to spend the most of (our) money. More interesting questions to me would be, e.g., “What should politicians not interfere in?” or “How should Denmark improve in 10 years, and how will we know if we were successful?”

To counter the bidding war tactic, a few parties have, with limited success, attempted to pose the question, “Where does the money come from?”, i.e., how do we ensure economic growth? But this drowns as the major parties engage in gift-giving (beware the Greeks).

Another classic in political debates is owning the story. The left-leaning parties have with some success spread the sentiment that only they care about the welfare of people, whereas the right side of the spectrum are greedy and only in it for the power. (Wake-up call: Nobody chooses a career in Danish politics for the money.) On the other side, the right-leaning parties have owned caring for the country and its culture, worrying about the threat of immigration.

In both cases, framing the supposedly dangerous opinions of the opponent is a common tactic. In reality, I am convinced they all want what they believe is best for the country.

Exchanging ideas

The media play a crucial role in ensuring a sound debate. And with owned media (blogs, social media, etc.), there is a potential and a risk that candidates bypass actual dialogue and just shout from their own platform. At least on the extremes.

The good thing is that the public service channels (DR), despite leaning slightly to the left themselves, have taken their role seriously and promoted actual exchanges of ideas and positive dialogue.

On Wednesday, I will still vote for a party on the centre-right axis. But I am encouraged to know that a large majority of voters in Denmark are fairly well-informed and don’t want any extremes. And they will vote in high numbers to ensure the stability and consensus that we have come to take for granted. Happy voting.

Need to know or nice to know?

You don’t need to read this article. It may be nice, though, if I do a good job.

Frustrated business person overloaded with work. Credit: http://www.lyncconf.com

With ever-increasing amounts of information, it’s a dilemma we face many times every day: Do I need to read this email, or can I skip it? Should I forward this to my colleagues? Should I cc my manager on this email?

It’s not a new dilemma, either. Ten years ago, I did research for my MA thesis on internal communication in an Australian branch office of a large global corporation. And an important worry for them was noise. Not physical noise in the office, but the daily clutter of too much information, and a fear of not getting the right information.

I have seen this play out in subsequent jobs, and I have also seen good and bad strategies for getting it right. So here’s a quick low-down:

Three types of information

1. Need-to-know: This is what you need in order to do your job correctly. Legal requirements, changed market conditions, customer information, etc. You can’t perform without this.
2. Nice-to-know: This is not technically necessary, but it will help you out. Knowing the long-term corporate strategy will make you perform better, but in the long term. Reading success stories from other departments may boost your engagement and loyalty, but it won’t be measurable on the bottom line.
3. Noise: This is neither. A poorly communicated case story or irrelevant details from other departments, for instance.

The problem is, of course, that the lines between these three are blurry, and poor decisions in determining the relevance of information often lead to an excess of noise.

How to decide

In the case of LEGO Australia (my MA thesis), there was a growing comprehension of the issue, which is a first step. An email training programme had helped people think about the receiver’s perspective when deciding whether to send an email or not.

While it may reduce noise, deciding on behalf of others is also risky. You can never adequately determine the needs of the other person, but your past experience with them can help you, and the more you work with people the better your chances of deciding correctly on their behalf.

This gives you essentially two choices: let the manager decide, or let the employee decide.

1. The manager decides. For this to work, the decision needs to be reliable. But even if it is, the power relation carries a risk of people feeling left out, leading to low engagement. I’ve seen teams where everybody felt the manager was withholding information. Whether it was true or not, it was not good for morale and collaboration.
2. The employee decides. On the face of it, an opt-in approach empowers the employee to make his own decisions, boosting morale and capabilities. But it greatly enhances the risk of noise, or of important information being left out. Actively training people in this task can help, but it may not be enough.

A mixed approach

Not surprisingly, it doesn’t have to be either-or. The point is to use different channels for different types of information.

When I was Chief Editor in Maersk Line, I managed the global mass-communication channel to employees. This was a great tool for nice-to-know stories. People could opt in and read what they wanted; my job was to present the stories in an appetizing, simple, and correct way, and make sure it was in fact nice-to-know and not noise.

But it was not great for need-to-know information. First of all, it was pull, not push, so people had to actively seek it out. But secondly, nobody was expected to read everything – it they did, it would become noise from sheer scale. For need-to-know we relied instead on push channels: email, team and townhall meetings, manager cascades, etc.

So if you want just one takeaway from this, here’s a simple rule of channels:

• For need-to-know, use push
• For nice-to-know, use pull
• For noise, don’t.

The Management Blind Spot

Wake-up call: Your team members probably know less than you think they do.

Ten years ago, I wrote my MA thesis on internal communication at the office of LEGO Australia. I made theoretical as well as real-life discoveries, and my recommendations to the management were well received.

One key finding especially has followed me ever since: what I then dubbed the management blind spot.

It’s not rocket science, it’s social science. And even if it sounds like common sense, I’ve found that the issue is quite pervasive.

The Downside of a Strong Leadership

At the time, LEGO Australia had a very strong leadership team with highly effective weekly meetings for sharing key insights across the board. Every member of the leadership had a great sense of where the business was going.

This made it so much more striking that the feeling did not reflect upon lower levels. One employee told me: “There’s no way we can interact with one another. I assume that the leaders get together and then they share.”

But confronted with a lack of cross-company interaction, a member of the leadership told me: “I don’t understand that, because I work with every part of the company.”

Team leads play a crucial role in sharing information with their teams. But since they are embedded in both the leadership team and in their own teams, they become blind to the perspective of their own teams, and sometimes wrongly assume that their employees have the same knowledge as themselves.

Oblivious or Machiavellian

I’ve seen this situation play out again and again, where especially senior leaders are oblivious to the lack of knowledge at lower levels – knowledge that they themselves are gate-keepers of.

(In one case I have even suspected a manager of actively preventing a free flow of knowledge, for whatever reason.)

Assuming a well-functioning hierarchy, the situation is difficult to avoid. Obviously, the more senior you are the more you should know across the businesses, and conversely less of the details.

But as a manger you should never forget that often your team only knows what you tell them.

Was Blind, But Now I See

What should managers do about it? Most importantly, they should acknowledge their own blind spot, and work actively to mitigate the pitfalls.

My recommendations to LEGO were:

• Identify key relationships and interactions between teams and engage these people in dialogue.
• Set up a “huddle exchange”, where employees on a rotational basis join the team meetings of teams outside their own, to learn more about the business.
• Increase informal interaction (social events, lunch, etc.) to make people more comfortable with each other across teams.

Today I would add that in a less hierarchical, more matrix-like organisation, the issue would be less prevailing, or take a different shape.

Finally, I should add that too much knowledge can be time-consuming, of course not everyone needs to know everything. Need-to-know is a separate topic I will explore later. The point here is awareness: you should know what you know and don’t know. And as a manager especially, you should know what your teams know and don’t know.

This post also appears on www.deja-vu.net.